E 




Class X-kM. 
Book_ilX(L 



R, E C O N S 1' 11 U C T I N . 



SPEECH 



HON. LOT M. MOREILL, 



OP MAINE, 



■3 d V 



IN THE SENATE OF TUE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 5, 18G8. 



The Senntn Imvin? uti'l-ir eonsideraHon the bill 
(II. 11. No. 43U; additional and isupplemcntary to an 
act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient 
government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 
1S67, and the acts supplementary thereto — 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine, said: 
Mr. President: I am but too eensilile that 
I come to the discussion of this question at a 
time when I fear it must be anything but agree- 
able to the Senate to attend to any i'urther con- 
sideration of this subject — that I am to glean 
in a field where the reapers have been many, 
and although the harvest has been abundant it 
has been gathered. On a motion collateral to 
the raea.sure, a debate has been precipitated by 
the opponents of congressional reconstruction 
which has opened to the Senate and to the 
country that great subject in all its amplitude 
and in all its relations — the whole field of the 
war, the powers of the Government, the rela- 
tions of the States, and the authority of the 
President and of the Congress of the United 
States in the exercise of their functions for the 
restoration of the "insurrectionary" States to 
the Union. 

Congress has been arraigned, and presented 
to the country, for th*" pari it litis tiikcii in this 
great work of reconstruction. It has been 
arraigned now on this question of reconstruc- 
tion, as it was arraigned during the war on the 
question of war. Congress, in the contempla- 
tion of the Constitution, being the great war 
ptower of the Govemmt-nt, necessarily tiiking 
upon itself that function, in giving direction to 
the Conduct of the war, tit once brought down 
Jipon its hrad the denunciation of the bold, 
tmd men who were in rebellion, the fierce and 
bitier criticism of ail parlies who hesitated or 
doubled as to war as a remedy for the ntvlion ; 
and, \r\ fact, all jiersons and all factions here 
and everywhere who questioned the authority 
of Congress to detil with the rebellion on the 
war side of the Government. 



And now th(» honorable Senator from Wis- 
consin [Mr. Doolitti.e] precipitates the ques- 
tion from which arise the same issues against 
the exercise of the powers of Congress in the 
consideration of the policy of reconstruction 
and restoration of these States to (heir rela- 
tions with the Federal Union; and I beg to be 
iillowed to say that the same spirit which char- 
acterized the denunciations of Congress during 
the war is displayed here to-day. Passionate 
invective, fierce and bitter denuncisition of the 
purposes and the measures of Congress, char- 
acterize this debate by its opponents. Con- 
gress is denounced now, as then, as usurping 
the "rights of the Stales." Congress is de- 
nounced now, as then, as establishing arbi- 
trary military authority in these States. Con- 
gress is denounced now, as then, of a purpose 
"to outlaw the white race" |n its "blind zeal," 
in the language of one honorable Senator, "to 
e.icalt the black race." We are charged spe- 
cifically wiih "disrobing the white race to 
enrobe the black race." We are charged spe- 
cifically with violating the Constitution of the 
United States "in order to give power and 
dominion over the white 10 the black." 

'J'liese, then, sir, are the char^^es and the 
specification of charges in tlie arraignment of 
Congress on its reconstruction policy. Out- 
lawry of tlie white race! Naturally enough 
one asks himself who is the white race here 
referred to of which Senators on this lloor 
aspire to be the eh;impions? Who are they 
in the history of this country? When the 
white race is referred to hero as havim; been 
legishited against by Congress, who is infant? 
The class of white men who have dominated 
in the South for the last thirty year.s — tliev, 
and nobody else ; the while men who are m 
jiower under the shara States set up by ex- 
ecutive usurpation, and exercising that power 
exclusively to the oppression of the rest of the 
population of the South. They, and they alone, 






are llic wliito race referred to ; and who ji.re 
tbey? Men wliose liaiids arc freshly imbrued 
in the blood of our children ; men who for 
thirty years have cherished the malignant pas- 
Bion of hatred to this Government which event- 
uated in civil war and blood ; men, moreover, 
who for a generation, na}', for two hundred 
years, have cherished a fiendish lust for domin- 
ion over their fellow-man, in defiance of the 
law of God, the principles of our holy religion, 
and the laws of every civilized nation on cirth. 
This is the party in court; this is the white 
race between which and the representatives of 
the loyal American people, the Senators who 
Lave precipitated this debate, and who have 
made it incumbent upon Congress to consider 
it, interpose and volunteer their arguments and 
their sympathy to defend. 

Mr. President, to these charges and specifi- 
cations of cliarges, to this alleged usurpation 
of the rights of the States — this supposed out- 
lawry of the whites, this establishing of mili- 
tary despotisms by Congress to the overthrow 
of ten States of this Union — is there any 
answer? Jthas been answered; first, by my 
honorable friend from Indiana, [Mr. MoR- 
Toy,] I'lilly, eloquentl}', logically, conclusively 
answered — answered many times by those who 
have followed him in debate; so that abso- 
lutely now there is nothing left for me save 
only to add iny feuble voice in testimony and 
approbation of what has been said oa this side 
of the Chamber. 

IIow does Congress meet this assumption of 
usurpation, of the establishment of military 
authority over ten States? I will read you the 
answer: "An act to provide for the more effi- 
cient government of ibc rebel States," passed 
March 2, 18G7. Let mo refer you to ii,s pro- 
visions : 

"AVhcrcns no logal State government or adequate 
protection for life or proiiciiy ncv exists in tiie rebel 
States of Virginia, Nortli Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia. ?.Ii.ssissii)[)i, Alabama, Louisiana, l'"lorida, 
Texas, anil Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary 
that peace and good order should bo enforced in said 
States until loyal an<l lepublican State goverumeuts 
can lie legally established: Tlierefore, 

_ " lie il oiini-Jfil by the Semite aittl House of Representa- 
livc-ioftlie United Stairs of America in Conftreis assein- 
lleil. Ttiat said rebel States shall bo divided into 
luilitaiy districts and ma(l(5 subject to the military 
authority of the United States, as hereinafter pre- 
scribed. " 

Then the tliird section provides: 

"That it shall bo the duty of each otTicer asisisrned 
as aforesaid to protect all persons in tlieir rights of 
person and pro[>crty, to suppress insurrection, dis- 
order, and violence, and to punish or cause to bo 
punished, all disturbers of the public peace and 
criminals.'' 

Further, in section five, it is provided: 

"That when the people of any one of said rebel 
Bf.ates shall have formed a constitution of govern- 
ment in conformity wilh the Constitution of the 
I'nited States in all respects, framed by aconvcutiou 
of delegated,'* SiC. — 

tliey may be admitted again to their relations 
with the General Government. 

Now, sir, to the opponents of congressional 
reconstruction 1 have to say. in answer to your 
specific charge that wo Lave established mili- 



tary despotism in these States, that finding 
anarchy, misrule, despotism, and disorder ia 
these States, as the result of the rebellion, in- 
surrection, and civil war waged by them. Con- 
gress by law, under its authority as the great 
war power of the nation, and bound to regard 
the results of the rebellion, has interposed its 
military authority as a police power to pre- 
serve order and protect life and liberty in theae 
States. 

Does it go any further than that'? Has any 
Senator on the other side attributed to it any 
other power than that 7 No, sir. Its purpose, 
then, was to protect persons and property. Was 
it necessary'? I do not stand here at this late 
day to argue that, of course. Allow me to refer 
Senators who doubt that to the current ev^ncs 
of history, to that general information oppu to 
all the citizens, by which at the time when thiff 
act was passed it had come to be the settled 
judgment of the nation that there was no pro- 
tection for life or property in these States. 
The courts were not open to the citizens of the 
United States ; they were closed to a class, as 
they had been for two hundred years. Here 
was the grand necessity for the interposition 
of the military police authority of the Consti- 
tution of the United States to preserve order. 
That is the answer, the full answer, explained 
in the preamble to the enactment itself. The 
preamble declares that no legal State govern- 
ments exist in those States. Is it pretended 
here that there are any legal State governments 
existing in those States at the present momentt 
This explains the raotiveand the purpose of the 
law which is characterized by the Opjiosition in 
the Senate as having established a military dos- 
jiotism over ten of the States of the American 
Union. 

When Senators talk of usurping the rights 
often of the States of the American Union, to 
what States do they refer'? Do they refer to 
the " slave States" that existed anterior to the 
rebellion in 18G0; to the "rebel States that 
existed during the war of the rebellion'? Do 
they refer to the " belligerent States" of that 
period? Or do they refer to the "insurrec- 
tionary States," 80 deuommated by the acta 
of Congress ? 

Mr. President, the argument about the in- 
terference of Congress with the rights of the 
States is of course upon the assumption that 
the rights of these "insurrectionary" States ^ 
have an existence. If the rights of these 
States disappeared by the events and in the 
progress of the war, then, of course, the charge 
falls to the ground. Now, upon what theory 
is the notion of the "abiding rights" of these 
States based? It is based upon the theory 
that, after all, it turns out that the nation has 
not been at war in a legal sense. It is upon 
the theory of the honorable Senator from 
^laryland, [Mr. Joiixsox,] argued here dur- 
ing the rebellion, argued many times since, 
and, of course, always ably and well, that we 
have had.no war in the sense of war; that we 
Lave only boeu engaged in aa effort on the 



West. Ees. Hliik. Boo. 



3 



part of the Government to put down an insiir- 
reciion ; that what we have seen and witnessed 
in the last six years is only tlie exercise of the 
police power of the nation in dealing wiih 
insurrection, and in no sense war. Tliat 1 
understand to be the position of the honorable 
Senator from Maryland, of Senators in the 
0|ii)<isition here, and in the country, and is 
the logic of ail opposition to reeonstruction 
either by Congress or the President ; the Sen- 
ator from Maryland sees very clearly that if 
we have been at war certain war rights have 
been acquired by the Government; that if the 
Government waged war on rebellion certain 
crand results would follow; the nation would 
be victor ; somebody would be defeated ; rights 
would be acquired or lost according to the 
success or the defeat of the resjieciive parties 
to the war. So tlie honorable Senator early 
concurred in the ground taken by Mr. Buchanan 
and by those who held that we had no remedy 
against the rebel States by war; and that tlie 
only exercise of authority by Congress, or the 
President, or the naiion at large, was the ex- 
ercise of the i)olice power of the Government 
to put down insurrection ; and tliat we had, 
under the Constitution, no authority whatever 
for war ; that war was destruction of the Uuiou, 
and could not be exercised. 

In the judgment of the nation I do not think 
tliis was correct. As a legal point I am sure 
it was ingeniously taken ; but it has lust its 
power for good or ill ; it was overruled by the 
judgment of the nation ; it was overruled by 
Congress ; it was overruled by the Executive ; 
and, unfortunately for the argument, it was 
overruled by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. Still, those who ojipose congressional 
"reconstruction" as against "restoration" 
fall back always, ever, and continually upon 
the abstract d(jctrine that the naiion had no 
power to make war, and of course, gets no 
rights of war, and consequently the rebel States 
were not involved in the disabilities, pains, 
penalties, and forfeitures of the war. Ihat is 
the logic, the legal and constitutional argu- 
ment of the OpiJOsition to congressioual recon- 
Btruclion. 

On this tlicory we have learned to miscall 
things altogether. On this theory the grand 
Army of the ILupublic, three million men, 
were only a posse cuinilatus, not to enact war, 
but to jireserve order and arrest traitors. Lieu- 
tenant General Grant, at the head of all the 
fcrces of the United Stales, was only the high 
constable of the nation ; was in no sense 
a military chiel'tain ; he was not prosecuting 
war; he was trying to keep order; and his 
grand march from the Ilapidan to liichmond 
was not a cam|)aign in the sense of war, by 
which rights were to be enforced or lost, but 
it was si'.iiply a movement of the high consta- 
ble with a posst coiiiilutiis to liichmond to 
force that cily to keep the peace ; not for its 
capture; not to destroy it, il need be. Jn the 
light of this inter|ir(aali<in of the Conslitulion, 
all your battles — Autietum, ChaiictUorsville, 



Gettysburg, Williamsburg, the Five Porks, and 
the surrender — are all nothing, so far as affect- 
ing the rights of the parties is concerned ; the 
Government having prosecuted this war for 
four bloody years at an expense of blood and 
treasure, unparalleled in history, came out 
where it went in, settling nothing by this " last 
resort," an appeal to arms. 

On this showing the question of secession \.\ 
an open (juestion. On this showing the eman- 
cipation proclamation, which was but an ex- 
pression and an act of the war power of the 
Government is a nullity necessarily, and all 
that you have done changing the instilutions, 
constitutions, or laws of the rebel States ia 
null and void, inoperative, and not binding on 
anybody. On this showing nolhing has been 
settled by this war. It was simply ihe exer- 
cise of a police i)0w6r ; it was not the exercise 
of that war power of the nation which alone 
could change results and which was omnipotent 
over cousiitutions and laws; institutions and 
individual rights; and whatever was determ- 
ined by it was settled forever. 

Now, sir, on this theory I understand to be 
based all the arguments of the Opposition to 
the power and authority of Congress to recon- 
struct these "insurrectionary" States. They 
all iM'ococd on the theory that no rights were 
lost by the war; that it worked no subversion 
of State governments, no change of State 
constitutions or State laws, and therefore no 
reconstruction was at all necessary or expe- 
dient. 'J'he argument of the Senator from 
,] is based on this 
belief that the State 
constitutions and Stats governments came 
through the war. The States went in with con- 
stitutions and governments, and they came out 
wiih constitutions and governments, with all 
their rights, privileges, and immunities unim- 
paired. Upon what theory can he assert this? 
Simply upon that to which 1 have referred, 
that we have not been at war, that we have 
been engaged in a great struggle to preserve 
order, and that during that struggle we were 
bound not to do damage. Nay, we have had 
it quoted upon us here often that in 18tJl we 
resolved that we would not do damage, that 
we were prosecuting the war, as we then called 
it, inaptly enough lo be sure, it would seem, 
wo were prosecuting the enterprise, if you 
please, or carrying on the struggle, not with a 
view of subverting institutions, State govern- 
ments, or anything of the sort, but that at the 
end all lh(;se instilutions, governments, Slates, 
and interests should be restored. Strange 
delusion of the limes! But. sir, in the provi- 
dence of God it was not to be so. 

But, .Mr. President, I do mit propose to detain 
the .Seiialo by elaborating that point. What I 
mean »iy, to reluin to ihe point for a moment, 
Is that the nation was at war with all the rights 
of a naiion at war is not an open question. 
The elfecl of this war upon Stale governments 
anil Slate instilutions is not an open question. 
Tlic Cuugresiiof the UuiteU Si.aU.-s, the supreme 



Indiana, [.Mr. IIiiXDKitKS, 
theory, lie adirnis as his I 



legislative war power of the Government, set- 
tled it in 18G1 by the act declaring non-inter- 
course with these States^ It settled it again in 
1862 by the act declaring them public enemies 
and awarding against them confiscation of es- 
tates and freedom of their slaves and civil and 
political disabilities to those engaged in rebel- 
lion — both the exercise of the supreme power of 
w ar on the principle of public law, and adequate, 
if prosecuted to extremes, to work an entire 
revolution in the governments of those States. 
It was settled also by the supreme executive 
authority of the Government of the United 
States in the execution of these laws, the issu- 
ing of the proclamation of non-intercourse 
under the act of 1861 and the enforcement of 
the act of 1862, and by the march of its armies 
within the limits and jurisdiction of these States, 
the destruction of their cities and their towns, 
the overthrow of their institutions, liberation 
of slaves, the destruction of life and property 
wherever the Army made its way, leaving des- 
olation and destruction in its track. Was that 
war or the exercise of the police functions of 
the Government? Sir, it was war in its most 
terrible reality. It was so adjudged, moreover, 
finally, by the supreme judicial tribunal of the 
Government, that the war waged by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States against the " in- 
surrectionary States" was in fact and in law, 
under the Constitution and by the principles 
of public law, war, and that it gave to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States all the powers 
and authority and rights of war which any one 
nation could properly have against another 
nation. ' • 

Now, sir, is that an open question? I un- 
derstand the theories and the speculations of 
the learned Senator from Maryland, for whose 
opinions no man can have a more profound re- 
spect than I have. I am not arguing the ques- 
tion witn him, but I am simply stating the facts 
of history ; I am stating simply the current 
events of the war, which overrule his opinions ; 
and which, sound or unsound, show they are no 
longer of the slightest practical importance to 
anybody but himself. The contest was a war ; 
and the nation had all the right of a nation at 
war ; and the results of the war involved the 
enemy, the domestic enemy, in all the pains 
and penalties and forfeitures and disabilities 
of a nation at war. That is the verdict of all the 
departments of this Government, legislative, 
executive, and judicial, and it is conclusive. It 
is conclusive with the present of the nation, 
it is conclusive with the past, and it will be 
conclusive with the future. All institutions, 
constitutions, interests, courts of law, general 
or State, must and will conform to this great, 
historical fact of war, war on the part of the 
nation rightfully and properly waged, with 
all the rights of a nation at war, and with all 
the results of a victorious and conquering 
nation. 

This is the record on which Congress stands ; 
but it is not all. I am now speaking of 
the effect of war on the organization of these 



States. My argument is, that its results were 
attended with annihilation of State govern- 
ments and "State rights." Who, sir, as a 
lawyer, will stand here now, after this gen- 
eral judgment of the concurring and coordinate 
departments of the Government of the United 
States, and argue for State rights '' in the 
insurrectionary States?" State rights, in the 
extreme sense always a political fallacy, has by 
war in these rebel States become an absurdity, 
a legal and constitutional paradox. As a seri- 
ous proposition, as a basis of legislative action 
here, it is an arrogant and impudent assump- 
tion in contradiction to the whole history of the 
war. 

But, sir, there is another method of reach- 
ing the effect of this rebellion on these States 
and their governments. The overthrow of these 
State governments results as well from the 
action of the States themselves. I am not 
speaking now of ordinances of secession ; 
nor of nullification ; I am not speaking of 
changes of constitution and laws during the 
rebellion by which these States were made to 
conform to the "confederate States." I pass 
that all by. I agree with the honorable Senator 
from Maryland that they are all null, inoper- 
ative, and void ; I attach not the slightest 
importance to their effect. If they effected 
nothing, did rebellion effect nothing? If the 
ordinances of secession, as a legal and technical 
proposition, were null and void, does it follow 
that the taking up of arms was null and void? 
Does it follow that when ten States broke into 
rebellion and armed for war and made war 
practically and marched armies against the 
national forces, sacked our cities, and belea- 
gured the national capital, these are not facts 
of some significance as bearing upon the rights 
of these States? 

What is a State government? It consists of 
constitution, in the first place, which is the 
the organic law. That constitution upon the 
American plan provides for three departments 
of government, which are the terms of the 
constitution. Then it is a complex machinery, 
consisting of, first, the organic law, and sec- 
ond, the departments. Either one may be 
called the State, but both together properly 
constitute the government of the State. How 
was this organism of the State affected by this 
war? Let us see. In order to have a State 
government, organized through the several de- 
partments, executive, legislative, and judicial, 
certain things are necessary. There must be 
officers, the persons who are to execute the func- 
tions of the State as provided in the organic 
law. How are they to be qualified? When 
may they begin to exercise any of those functions 
to put themselves in harmony with the Govern- 
ment of the United States? As the Constitutioa 
of the United States provides, when they have 
taken an oath to support the Constitution of 
the United States, and not before. The oath 
prescribed by the Constitution of the United 
States is the ligament which binds these States 
to the Union ; it is as the soul in the body that 



animates the State; it is the very breath of 
life, without which there is no State vitality 
and no possibility of State organization. Is 
not that true? Will anybody deny that propo- 
sition ? When the oath is gone, what becomes 
of the organization? Itgoec^ with it, of course ; 
the ligament is broken, the breath of life de- 
parts, the vitality is gone. Now, did not these 
people renounce the oath ? Did they not abjure 
the jurisdiction of the United States? i)id 
they not defy it, deny its authority, and so ab- 
dicate power? Everybody must concede that. 
Then the organization of the State was gone, 
and it was gone by renunciation, abjuration, 
abdication ; so that, taking South Carolina for 
illustration, as she led the way to armed rebel- 
lion, there was not, in 18G2, any ofiBcer in the 
whole State under oath to support the Consti- 
tution of the United States. AH had abjured, 
all had renounced, and the effect was disorgan- 
ization of its government, absolute and entire. 
That condition of things remained until the 
close of the rebellion, so that at the close of 
the rebellion there was no officer and of course 
no function in that State. The State organiza- 
tion was dead ; its officers had broken away from 
their allegiance, it had become foresworn, and 
it could perform no act of State authority what- 
ever. 

At the close of the war what was the condi- 
tion of the State? Disorganized; disorganized 
by its own act; disorganized by the abjuration 
of every officer who could perform a function. 
How could it be reanimated? On the theory 
of my argument they had lost all their rights; 
they had been engaged in war, and had been 
overthrown; they hud been treated as a pub- 
lic enemy, and had been conquered, and had 
lost all civil and political rights, and were in 
a state of absolute disability. There was not 
only no officer in South Carolina to perform 
the functions of office, but there were no per- 
sons in South Carolina who were eligible to 
office. How, then, was government to be 
revived? The peoi)le, just defeated as a pub- 
lic enemy, could not do it; they were under 
the disabilities of a public enemy — in a state of 
total political and civil disability. Some sov- 
ereign power, some power outside of them- 
selves, must relieve them from this disability, 
and give them permission to reorganize those 
governments. But, sir, I have not yet come 
to that part of the argument; I am simply 
showing, attempting to show, the disorgauiza- 
tion of these State governments. 

But one step further : while these State 
organizations were thus disorganized and lost, 
their institutions and laws were overthrown, 
80 that South Carolina, which went into the 
rebellion in 18G0 a "slave State," came out a 
free State. IIow? By the change in her funda- 
mental law; and how was that effected? Not 
by her own act directly, but by the incidents 
and events of war. By her act of war on the 
Government she had given tlie Government 
of the United States the authority to wage 
war, and making war the Government found 



it necessary to change her constitution and 
to emancipate her slaves. Nay, further, it 
found it necessary by an amendment in the 
Constitution of the United Slates, to proriJe 
for a total inhibition of slavery in any of the 
States. Then, sir, during the war, by the 
action of the Government of the United States, 
the constitution of South Carolina became sub- 
verted altogether ; her slave code and the great 
body of her laws were subverted, overthrown 
by the supreme power of the Government in 
the exercise of its great war functions during 
the exigencies of civil war. 

In this view what becomes: of all this talk 
about these States having •' brought their State 
governments" through the blood and carnage 
of the war? According to the argument of 
the Senator from Indiana everything else 
seems to have perished ; there was general 
desolation throughout the South ; cities were 
sacked and burnt; hundreds of thousands of 
the southern people perished ; poverty, mis- 
ery, distress, general anarchy and disorder 
everywhere prevailed ; nothing remained per- 
fect and undisturbed but the myth of State 
constitutions; "the rights and the privileges, 
the immunities and the dignity" of the rebel 
States triumphed over all, and came out of the 
greatordeal of battle unscathed anduntouched 1 
And honorable Senators bow reverently and 
obsequiously before the shade of departed 
slavery as if it were a real entity, had a bodily 
existence, and we were legislating in its pres- 
ence and in deference to its supposed king- 
ship. 

State rights, sir, were annihilated by the 
march of the armies of the United States, which 
conquered and subdued everywhere, and also 
by the infatuation and madness of their people 
in making war on a Government the most be- 
neficent on earth, against which they had 
never made any well-grounded or just com- 
plaint. During the war they were public ene- 
mies, and at the surrender were in a state of 
total civil disability and could exercise no func- 
tion of Government whatever ; their constitu- 
tions and institutions were subverted and revo- 
lutionized, and they must be touched by a power 
outside of them and which lay only in the sov- 
ereignty of the Government of the United States, 
before they could be reorganized or vitalized, 
or put in harmonious relations with the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. 

These notions of the effects of the war on 
these States are not novel. 1 am saying noth- 
ing new, and surely nothing unusual in the 
Senate. Those who took the ground that the 
nation had a remedy in war knew in the begin- 
ning that these would be its results. They 
knew that it would be attended with the utter 
overthrow of State governments, the utter anni- 
hilation of slavery and all its interests. They 
anticipated that, contemplated it, and, so far as 
its introduction into this Chamber is con- 
cerned, it was not original with this side of 
tlie House; it originated with the Opposition. 
The hoDorublti Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. 



6 



Davis,] far-scein;?, iiulcfivtigaljle, pliilosopliic 
in bis speculations upon iiistory iind upon 
current events, saw it llie liist ten ilaj's alter 
he entered tins Clianiber in 18G1, and jiro- 
posed to provide ibr it. He saw tiiat the war 
cloud whieli was then overliaiiging the nation 
and threatening to involve every part of it in 
war — fearful, fratricidal, general war — would be 
attended with the results of war ; that it would 
give the nation rights of war; that it would 
inflict upon the enemy ibrfeitures and disabil- 
ities of war ; and he would provide for that 
state of things, and I proclaim him here and 
now to the nation as the great originator and 
inventor of the whole theory of the results which 
we are providing lor in our policy of recon- 
struction. He was the great inventor of the 
term, now become historic, " Iteconstruction." 
He saw at a glance on entering these Chambers 
Low this thing must be dealt with ; that the 
people of the rebellious States must be treated 
as enemies; that we must hold ao'ainst them 
the rights of a public enemy; that we must 
deal with them as enemies, and we must insist 
that the results of victory should be the entire 
overthrow both of their institutions and their 
constitutions, and that the remedy of the nation 
would be in the end the right to "reconstruct," 
the right to readjust tlie parts to the nation. 
When the war was over and institutions and 
constitutions subverted, the governments no 
more, the then honorable Senator from Ken- 
tucky foresaw that it would be the duty and 
the necessity of the Government of the United 
States to reorganize and reconstruct. To show 
that I am right let me refer to the record. 

I hold in my hand a bill introduced by the 
honorable Senator from Kentucky on the oOlh 
of December, I80I, entitled "A bill declaring 
certain persons to be alien enemies, forfeiting 
their property to the United States, creating a 
lien on said property in favor of loyal persons 
to indemnify them lor such damages as they 
may have sustained by the existing war of 
rebellion." I need not read it in detail. It 
will be found that it contemplated the exercise 
of authority and power far beyond any exercised 
by the Congress of the United States since. It 
covered the whole question. It assumed the 
absolute supremacy of the nation. It was 
based on the theory that the nation was at 
war: that it had public enemies; that our 
former fellow-citizens were these enemies ; 
that the contest was to be prosecuted as a war 
and with the results of war. By this bill the 
honorable Senator, in advance, declared the 
rebels to be "alien enemies." Not a few of 
the leaders; but the jirovision was sweeping — 
every person who should participate at all, 
directly or indirectly, in this war was to be 
regarded as an " alien enemy." What was to 
be the consequence of this declaration? For- 
feilure of all lights, civil and political. That 
was sagacious — that was profound even, be- 
cause it met the exigency, stated the theory 
and the jiolicy of coming events. It took most 
of us a loug time to reach that conclusion ; but 



the honorable Senator saw it in advance and 
would ]irovide fbi' it. 

But that is not all. Here arc resolutions 
introduced by the Senator about the s.nnie lime. 
The bill was introduced on the oOih of Decem- 
ber. 18G1. On the loth of Februi;ry following 
the Senator introduced a sei'ies of resolutions, 
in which he undertook' to embody the jirinciplea 
of the war, the principles which underlay it, 
the power of the Government, and the liatil- 
ities of those who opposed it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Will the honorable Senator 
permit me to inake a suggestion? 

Mr. iAIORRILL, of Maine. Ce.-taliyy. 

Mr. DAVIS. I will ask the hoaorable Sen- 
ator to do me the justice and ih j courtesy to 
have those resolutions read by the Clerk. 

Mr. MOlllllLL, of Maiue. At the present 
time? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Certainly} I 
shall be glad to oblige the Senator. 

Mr. D A V 1 S. 1 have uo objection to the bill 
being read, too. 

Mr. MORRIIjL, of Maine. I do not care 
about having the bill read now. It is pretty 
long, but I send the resolutions to the desk, 
and ask that they be read. 

The Secretary read the following resolu- 
tions, submitted by Mr. Davis on the 13th of 
February, 18G2: 

"1. Resolved, Tliat the Constitution of the United 
States is tlio luiidiiinentiil liiw of tlio Government, 
anil tlio powers cstablislicd and granted, and as 
parted out and vested by it, the limitations and 
restrictions wliieli it imposes upon tlie Icsislalivo, 
executive, and judicial dopartmcntsi, and the States, 
and tbo riKlits. |)rivilcKCs, and liliertics wiiich it 
assures to tlio people of the United States and tho 
Stales rcsi>ectively, arc C.vcd, permanent, and im- 
mutable tliroutth all the phases of peace and war, 
until changed by the i>ower and in the mode pre- 
scribed by the Constitution itself; and they cannot 
be abrogated, restricted, enlarged, or diff.rciitly 
apportioned or vested by any other power.or iu any 
other mode. 

'■ 2. /iexu/ved. That between tho Government and 
theeitizen the obligation of protection and obedienco 
form mutual risbts and obligations; and to enablo 
every citizen to perform his obligations of obedience 
and loyalty to the Government it should give hiia 
reasonable protection and security in such perlbrui- 
ancc; and when tlictiovcrnmcnt fails in that respect, 
for it to hold theeitizen to be criminal in not per- 
forming bis duties of loyalty and obeilicncc would 1)0 
unjust, inhuman, and uu outrage ui>ou this ago of 
Christian civilization. 

"3. licKolvd, Thatif any powers of the Constitution 
or Government of the United States. or ofthc States, 
or any rights, privileges, immunities, and liberties 
of the people of the United States, or the States, are, 
or may herealter be, suspended by the existence of 
this war, or by any iirouuilgatiou <.f martial law. or 
by the suspension of the writ of hubaiH ri>n>'"< iiu- 
inediately u|)oii the term i nation of the war sueli pow- 
ers, rights, privileges, immunities. i\nd liberties would 
be resumed, and would have force and cll'ect as 
though they had not bei-n suspended. 

"4. Ji'cmdvcil, That thcduly of Congress to guaranty 
to every State a republican form of government, to 
protect each of them against invasion, and on tho 
application of the Legislature or executive thrreuf 
against domestic violence, and to cnloree the aullior- 
ity, Constitution, and laws ofthc United States in all 
the .States, areeonslilutionalobligalionswhicb abido 
all times and circuuistancos. 

"5. Jicio/veil. That no State can, by any vote ofneocs- 
sion. or by roi)cUiou agaiual tbo authority, Coustitu- 



tion, nnd Inws of the Unitrd State?, or by nny other 
net, nbilic:ilc licr rielits or oblistilioiis uiuicr that 
Conelilution or lliOfcC liav!», or ubsolvc lit-r people 
from llirir nh<Mliciicc to llieiii, or llic UiiitcU .Statce 
from Ihcir oblifTiilion to ci;:ir:inty lo sueli St.itn a 
rci>iibllc:in lonii of covemiiieiit. mid to prolrct lier 
people liy causing; llio duo cnloreemcnl williin lior 
territories ol tlio nutboiity. Coustituliou, aud laws 
of tlic IJiii'ed .Stnte.-". 

"0. Ji'eaolvetl. 'ihiit there cnnnot be nny forfeiture 
or conliseiilinn ol tlievigbts of persons or property 
of .any eitizcn of llie United St:ilcs wlio is loyal and 
obedient to the nuthorily, Conftitution, nncl laws 
tliereof. or of nny person wlialiioever. unless lor acts 
wliieli tlio liiw has previously deeliired to be criminal, 
and lor the puni:<linient of which it bus provided 
suih lorfeiiuro or confisealion, 

'"7. lieHoheit. That it is the duty of tlicUnited States 
to subdue and punish the ctistinc rebellion by force 
of arms nnd civil trials in the fbortest practicable 
time, and with the least cost to the people, but so 
decisively and tlioroucbly ns to ini[irefs upon the 
present and luturc gcMerntions as ayreat (rnth that 
rebellion, exicpt for grievous oppression of (Jovern- 
mcnt. will bring <ipon the rebeN incomparably more 
of evil than obedience to Ibo Coustituliun and tbo 
laws. 

"8. Rfitoheff, That the United States flovprnment 
should march their armies into all the insurgent 
States, and promptly put down the military power 
nhlcli they have arrayed against it, aud give pro- 
tection and security to the loyal men thereof, to 
enable them to reconstruct their legitimate Slate 
governments, and bring them and the people back to 
the Union and to obedience and duty under the Con- 
stitution and the laws of the United States, bearing 
the sword in one hand and the olive branch in the 
other, and while inflicting on the guilty leaders con- 
dign and exemplary punishment, grunting amnesty 
and oblivion to the comparatively innocent masses; 
and if the people of any State cannot, or will not, 
reconstruct Ihcir State government and return to 
loyalty and duty. Congress should provide a govern- 
ment for such State as a Territory of the United 
States, seetiringto the people thereof their appropri- 
ate constitutional rishtd." 

Mr. DAVIS. I will sny to the honoral)le 
Senator liiat I adhere to every priiici|)le and 
every position in those resolutions, and 1 have 
done so throughout the war. 

Mr. MOUlilJjIv, of Maine. I am more than 
delighted to hear that, because I sliall soon ex- 
pect the honorahlc Senator to range himself on 
our side, [(jaughter. ] 

Mr. DAVIS. 1 shall show you where I stand 
in a day or two. [Laughter. J 

Mr. MORRILL, of Mtiine. My purpose was 
in part lo compliment the Senntor lor his intu- 
itive sense of the rights of the (joveriimont and 
for his elaboration of those rights in the form 
of a slat emeu I so early as ISSO'i, and to give him 
the full credit of liaving boon the originator 
of congressional roconsliiiction. Precisely the 
state o(" things which he contemplated in these 
resolutions came to pass. lie then ptiitl to the 
rebels: if you resist my .admonition, ifyou con- 
tinue fighting, if you bring on gencnil war, if 
you put yourselves in the tilliiiide of public en- 
emies, not only pains and penalties sliitll come 
to you, not only forfeiture of property anil of 
civil and political rights, but when the great 
destruction of State constiluiinns, when the 
day of 8ub version comc", then the nation will 
interpose and it will be the duty, nay, the necos- 
silv, of the nation, to ii)ler|iose. to do wluU? lo 
*' reconstrurt," readjust the disordered parts, 
reconstruct State consiiiiitions in li:irinony with 
Uie chuuged state of things produced by the 



war. That is what the honor.able Senntor then 
foresaw, and that, by the blessing of (Jod. is 
what we are now trying to do. lie saw with 
clear vision what ihe results would be if ihey 
continued in their resistance lo the Govern- 
ment until the Cjovernmcnt was obliged to e.v- 
ercisc its siiprtme authority of wnr, so that it 
should destroy slavery, Slate institutions, con- 
stitutions, Governments, and general dis(n-der 
should ensue. Then, under Ihe consliliiiional 
provision which guaranties to the people rf 
each State a republican government, it would 
be the duty of the Government of the United 
States — not of the Piesident, but of the United 
States — to step in and restore ihcin. How? 
IJy restoring the old State governments? No 
such thing was contemplaied, no such thing 
was dreamed of, but lo restore order by an 
adjustment of the parts, adjusling the nation 
to its changed condilioii by reconstruction. 

Let me read one of these resoluiions again. 
The Senator will e."?cusethe satisfaction I take 
in this early part of his labors here. My espe- 
cial interest centers in the hist resolution. My 
admiration of it is unbounded. [Laughter.] 
I have kept it by me constantly, and have ad- 
monished the honorable Senator from lime to 
time, as I thought he needed, that his record 
was against his present position, that he was 
doing violence in these latter days lo his former 
good works and ways, that his early record was 
sound, logical, and right, but that his speeches 
of late, for some reason or other, were doing 
great violence to it. Now let me read tho 
emphatic parts of the last resolution: 

"That the United States Oovern men t should march 
their armies in to a II thcinsurgenl.'^lales and promt)! ly 
put down tho milit iry power which liiey h:ivo ar- 
rayed against it. and uivo iirotecliou aud security lo 
the loyal men lliercof." 

Give protection to "the loyal men,"' c:irry 
♦he sword for the rebels, the olive branch for 
the loyal men. That is what we arc doing now. 

Mr. SU.MXER. And the phrase is "loyal 
men," wilhout distiuotlon of color. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I did not nollco 
that, but of course "all loyal'' men, of neces- 
sity, includes tlie colored men. 

Mr. SU.MXI:R. Of course. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Aud the reso- 
lution proceeds: 

"Give protoctioa and Bccuiity to tho loyal men 
thereof." 

To what end are you to glvo security to 
the loyal men? 

"To enable thein to reconstruct" — 
That is it. There is the word — 
"to reconstruct their Icgitiuiuto State govcrnmonta." 

Now, v.hat if they do not do it? 

"Ami if tho people of nny Stntecnnnot, orwill not, 
reconstruct their .State kovltiiiiicuI and reiuiii to 
loyally a:.d duty. Cnn^crcsssliouM priivid<' :i g"V>rn- 
iniMit for such Slalo 03 a Tcrrilury of tho jUnitod 
Stales." 

It was never proposed to treat Ihem nl)so- 
luiely ns 'J'rrriloi ies on this side of the Cham- 
ber. I tliiuk, uflcr that dcclaruliou, it ia 



8 



hcrdly worth while for us to speculate about 
"States in the Union or out of the Union." 
If as early as 1862 the honorable Senator from 
Kentucky contemplated that in the progress of 
events these States would be in the position 
of territories, when it would be proper for the 
Congress of the United States to treat them as 
Territories and give them governments as 
Territories, I am inclined to think it is hardly 
worth while for us to quibble on nice points. 
All I have to regret about this is that while I 
am disposed to immortalize the Senator from 
Kentucky in the history of the country, I am 
afraid it will derogate from the record of my 
honorable friend from Massachusetts. [Laugh- 
ter.] I think the general impression is, that 
the Senator from Massachusetts was the origin- 
ator of the idea that these States were remitted 
to territorial rights, and should be treated as 

J ftTltoriGS 

Mr. DAVIS. If the honorable Senator will 
allow me I will present him with the resolution 
of the Senator from Massachusetts, offered 
about three days before my series, and to which 
mine was a response. There was not a voice 
in favor of his except his own when they were 
ofl'ered in the Senate. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. He could not 
have got a patent right for liis. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Will the honorable Senator 
allow them to be read? 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No; I shall want 
to look at them. 1 do not desire to get up any 
antagonism between the honorable Senator 
from Kentucky and my friend from Massa- 
chusetts. I prefer to leave them to hght it out. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. I will take a hit or two at you 
as I go along. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I understand 
the honorable Senator from Kentucky to inti- 
mate that he is preiiared on this point. I receive 
the intelligence with composure. If the Sen- 
ator believes, as he professes to, that Congress 
in its " reconstruction policy" is making war 
on the Constitution of the United States, it is 
obvious that his record here places him on the 
skirmish line, at least. 

Enough, Mr. President, and more than enough 
I am sure, upon this chief point on the greatsub- 
ject under debate ; the point which underlies 
the whole of it, and upon which policies of res- 
toration and reconstruction must rest, is that by 
the war, through the war, and on account of 
the war, the southern States lost their State gov- 
ernment and with them all the rights of States 
and all the rights of individuals, and were in 
the power of the General Government at the 
close of the war and must look to the General 
Government for the restoration of their rights, 
including the rights of government, amnesty for 
the great crime they had committed during the 
war, and for the future of their States. If I 
have demonstrated this proposition there is 
nothing left for the nation except the policy 
of Congress, reconstruction, not restoration — 
*' reconstructioa" against "restoration." 



Now, sir, the only question left on the merits 
of the case, to which I shall barely refer, not 
to argue it, not even to state it, is whether 
Congress has performed its duty wisely and 
well ; whether the reconstruction policy em- 
braced in the several acts now before Congress, 
and those which have antedated them, are a 
wise discharge of the great duty devolving upon 
the Congress of the tfnited States at the close 
of the war to reconstruct these States in har- 
mony with the national life? What have we 
done? I am not to enumerate, but will sim- 
ply state, the substance of the acts under con- 
sideration. 

First, our military bill, so much denounced 
as establishing military despotism, is simply an 
interposition of a police force to preserve order 
and the agency by which reconstruction is to be 
consummated. I defy the ingenuity of Sena- 
tors to make it either more or less in its pro- 
visions, or in its purposes. 

Mr. President, I desire briefly to advert to 
the position taken in the debate by Senators on 
the other side of the Chamber. I begin with 
the Senator from Maryland. For his record 
on reconstruction I have little but approbation. 
I have the highest consideration for his char- 
acter, his talents, his patriotism, and his pub- 
lic services. I could not say less to do jus- 
tice to my own feelings and my own sense of 
the public record of that Senator. I under- 
stand that for all practical purposes, and for 
the highest objects to be obtained by Congress 
in its policy of reconstruction, the honorable 
Senator from Maryland stands with Congress — 
I do not say that of his constitutional and legal 
opinions, but of that legislative record of the 
Congress of the United States which will stand 
out in history as the grandest legislative rec- 
ord in all time — the Senator from Maryland 
stands peerless and alone ou that side of the 
Chamber. 

Now, sir, the reconstruction policy of Con- 
gress is a complex policy. It is not embraced 
simply in the bills to which I have alluded, but 
it covers the whole period of the war. We 
began to reconstruct as soon as we began to 
conquer. 

The great measure which will have place in 
history as the most sublime, not only of tliis 
war, but of all time, which is to make this 
country illustrious among the civilized nations, 
which gave us success in war at home and 
honor and credit abroad, was the emancipa- 
tion proclamation and the anti-slavery amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States. 
On that question, I am happy to say, the hon- 
orable Senator from Maryland was not only 
on the side of Congress, but conspicuous. I 
shall never cease to remember, with the ut- 
most pleasure and delight, the speech, remark- 
able for its eloquence and power and pathos 
and dignity, of the Senator on that occasion. 
I had to thank him for it then, and I am not 
less grateful now. So on the corner-stone of 
reconstruction the honorable Senator from 
Maryland stands with Congress and against 



9 



those who voted against the inhibition of sla- 
very, the cause of rebellion in the American 
States. This was the first step in reconstruc- 
tion. Here Congress began to put the nation 
in harmony with the changed state of affairs 
brought about by the emancipation proclama- 
tion of Mr. Lincoln, which had subverted State 
governments, changed slave States into free 
States, and necessitated radical reconstruc- 
tion. 

But that is not all. The honorable Senator 
voted lor the civil rights bill, the complement 
of the anti-slavery amendment of the Constitu- 
tion — a bill made necessary by the fact of 
emancipation. He saw, as others did not, that 
when the slave was emancipated, when the 
shackles fell from his limbs, when he became 
a "freedman," he must become a freeman. 
The President of the United States, whose 
vision was dim about those days, said he was a 
"freedman," nothing more; he was of an un- 

Eri vileged class in our system ; he was a serf ; he 
ad ceased to be a slave to his old master to 
become a slave to the State. The Senator from 
Maryland, rising in his place here in the Senate, 
maintained his citizenship; according to the 
logic and the principles of the Constitution 
there was only one class of persons in this coun- 
try, the American people, and they were all 
citizens now. The condition of servitude which 
was the exception to the general American 
principle had passed away, and now every 
native-born person was a citizen, and, being a 
citizen, he was entitled to all the privileges and 
protection of a citizen of the United States; 
and the Senator, leaving his associates, gave his 
voice and vote to this great bill of rights for the 
American citizen and against the objections 
of the President of the United States. 

But more ; the Senator froni Maryland was 
for suffrage, the crowning act of congressional 
reconstruction. It did not seem to be so at 
first, but in the end the great necessity of 
congressional reconstruction, without which 
reconstruction in the southern States was im- 
possible under the present state of things, was 
the ballot. The ballot in the hands of the 
negro became as much the necessity of recon- 
struction of republican States and their res- 
toration as the bayonet in his hands was the 
necessity of the war. I do not mean to say 
that the honorable Senator from Maryliiiid 
thought that was so in the beginning. I think 
he did not. I do not mean to say that he thinks 
it the most advisable thing possible to be done 
now; but sinking his constitutional doubts in 
what he conceived to be the great emergency 
of the Republic, to reconstruct, he yielded all 
his opinions, all his constitutional doubts, and 
gave, not to fiction, but to country, to liberty, 
to human rights, and to the peace and res- 
toration of the country the doubts he might 
entertain on that subject. For that I honor 
him. 

The clear sense of the Senator from Pennsyl- 
vania [Mr. BucKAi.Kw] enables him to see dis- 
tinctly enough in this debate that the States lost 



their governments ; that the Stite constitutions 
were subverted ; thatthe war was attended with 
decisive results; that the nation was victorious, 
was the conqueror, and had the rights of a con- 
queror; that our enemies lost all ; they went in 
lor the ruin of the nation and lost their rights, 
many of them their lives. He sees that, and 
so when I propounded the question to the hon- 
orable Senator whether the guarantee of the 
Constitution applies to the State governments 
that antedated the rebellion his frank and char- 
acteristic reply is, "of course not; they were 
destroyed." 1 have nooccasion to pursue the 
honorable Senator's argument after that con- 
cession. That brings him in princi[)le on the 
side of Congress ; he stands for reconstruction. 
If they were destroyed they must be recon- 
structed. I know that the honorable Senator, 
from those relations which are common to all 
of us, feels a little delicacy in avowing it quite 
as emphatically as I do; and perhaps he will 
not thank me for doing it. But his principles 
place him on our side. His opinions bring him 
with us. He must be respectful to his party 
relations, and so the honorable Senator says in 
his speech that he does not exactly approve of 
what we have done ; he rather prefers what Mr. 
Johnson has done, although he does not under- 
take to defend it on principle. To the question 
whether he thought the constitutional guaran- 
tee applied to the Johnson organized govern- 
ments he declined to say that it did. He thought 
that Mr. Johnson's policy was to be preferred 
over that of Congress, because Mr. Johnson had 
allowed the people of those States to organize 
State governments, and for that reason he was 
disposed to accept them. If I had the time and 
he and the Senate the patience to listen, I could 
show that the premise on which he puts hia 
adhesion to the Johnson policy is fallacious. 
Mr. Johnson did not allow the States to form 
these governments. He dictated to these States. 
He told these States on what conditions and on 
what conditions alone they might form State 
governments. He told them who might and 
who should not exercise the elective Irimchise, 
who should and who should not be electors of 
the convention, and when they were in conven- 
tion, what they should and what they should 
not do. Remember that he said that as Cora- 
mander-in Chief of the Army ; remember he 
had these communities in his power; remem- 
ber his military lieutenants were there, and he 
had declared martial law to be the supreme law 
of the States. He said to them, "lake these 
terms and be reconstructed." More, sir, he 
undertook to say that a portion of the rebels 
should reorganize those governments, while a 
majority of the people, the loyal people in some 
of those States, were utterly excluded from all 
participation in the government. If that com- 
mends his nolicy to the Senator from Penn- 
sylvania, while he 13 with Congress in prin- 
ciple, all I can say is that he must follow the 
President on a policy that ignores his prin- 
ciples. 
I now turn to the Senator from Wisconsin, 



10 



[Mr. DoOT.iTTl.i:.] 'J'liat Scnntor agrees willi 
CiHijrressiiiprincipIcllial (lie rebel lion tlestro^ed 
llievSlales; tiial at ilie close of llie reheliioii 
tlun-e were no Stale governments in existence; 
lliut lliey needed reconslrnelion, ninsL be recoii- 
Elrncled; but lie contends iliat Congress is con- 
cluded from any participation in it, because llie 
President oft lie United States lias assumed juris- 
diction and Congress is estopped. I do not [iro- 
Iiose to argue this i)oint, because it lias been 
)etter done by olliers llian 1 could hope to do. 
Ibe Conslituiion, 1 believe, provides lliat if 
Stales arc to be reconstructed or guarantied, 
"the United States" are to do it. IJy what 
logic t he Senator understands that the President 
of the United States is "the United States," 
when by the Constitution lie is only one coordi- 
nate branch of three, he has not told the Sen- 
ate in his late speech, and 1 do uot know that 
he ever has. 

I pass to other considerations upon which 
the Senator took liis departure from the con- 
gressional policy and joined himself to that of 
the President of the United Slates. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. 1 do not desire to inter- 
rupt the Senator 

Mr. MOUUILL, of Maine. It is no inter- 
ruption. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But I wish simply to 
etate that, as regards the view which 1 enter- 
tained in relation to the effect of the rebellion 
upon the States of the South, I discussed that 
question at coPisiderable length in January, 
18G5, and stated my views on that subject. 1 
refer the honorable Senator to my speech at 
that time. Jn my speech of the other day 1 
did not go into a discussion of the effect of the 
rebellion upon the States, their governments 
or constitutions. 1 was discussing more the 
qnesiion of the true policy of reconstruction 
to be pursued by Congress. 

Mr. MOllUIIiL, of Maine. So I understood, 
nnd therefore 1 do not address myself to that 
part of the Senator's speech, but was about to 
proceed to the question of policy to which he 
objects. 

On the question of emancipation the Senator 
was sound, lie went for the iiroclamalion of 
cmancijjalion. On the question of the anti- 
Blavery amendment of the Constitution the 
honorable Senator stood by Congress and con- 
gressional reeonsUuction. Here, 1 am sorry 
to say, he stopped, lie had freed the slave, 
and, in the spirited language of the President 
of the United .States, he proposed to let him 
take care of himself. Mr. .iohnson had organ- 
ized these States, lie had put the old slave- 
nui^ters exclusively in power. Tliey had 
enacted vagrant laws to take possession of the 
negro bodily, 'i'he courts of the slave States 
were closed against the negro. 'J'iiere was no 
course of administration of justice in all the 
southern Slates i'ur the negro. 'J'he Senator 
knew that, lie knew that under the laws of 
the southern States there was no such thing as 
l)rolecuon to person or property or n-dress for 
grievance for colored men, uo courts in which 



the negro could be permitted to tell the truth 
in vindication of iiis own rights, and that the 
heel of oppression was on the nec!< of the for- 
mer slave, llo was held to be a " frcedman," 
belonged to a subordinate and inlerior race, 
and that his status was a question exclusively 
belonging to the .Slates. 

Under these circumstances, the Congress of 
the United States introduced a bill to protect 
liiin in his civil rights; a bill which assumed 
that, liaving iVee<l him, wcare bound to protect 
him ; a bill which in equity and good con- 
science I think the world approves. Not to 
have done it would have been infamy in the 
American Congress. To free him and leave 
him to the domination and tyranny and oppres- 
sion of the old master would have been a 
cruelty. This is what that bdl contemplated ; 
and when we came to that the honorable Sen- 
ator voted no. What is the justification for 
that? lias the honorable Senator ever ex- 
plained it? Is it explainable? Is the denial 
of protection to an American citizen explain- 
able in law, in equity, or in good conscience? 
Sir, it would have been a shame to the nation 
and it would have become a by-word and a 
hissing in the general judgment of the nations 
of the earth if it had failed to vindicate its 
authority and its sense of justice, llere the 
honorable Senator breaks away I'rom congres- 
sional reconstruction and stands on the mes- 
sage of the Presidentof the United States, who 
says it is no concern of Congress what becomes 
of the negro ; he is an inferior man, as if that 
was an argument justilying oppression. 

Mr. DOOLirrLE. As the honorable Sen- 
ator is not stating my position 

Mr. MORUILL, of Maine. No; I am 
stating what the President said. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The honorable Senator 
referred to me. 

Mr. MORUILL, of Maine. I am stating 
what the President said, and what the Senator 
indorsed by his vote. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the honorable Sen- 
ator will allow me, 1 simply desire to say in 
relation ^o that matter, that 1 did not maintain 
that no duty was imposed on this Government 
under the constitutional amendment to secure 
the freedom and the rights of the negro ; and 
I introduced a bill on that subject myself into 
the Senate, which 1 have no doubt was con- 
siitutional. On the other hand, 1 have never 
doubted that certain clauses in the civil rights 
bill were unconstitutional, and therefore I 
voted against it. 

Mr. MOllUlLL, ofMaino. Of course. The 
point is known ; the honorable Senator voted 
against it. IMiat is my argument. The civil 
rights bill shows for itself. Jt was protection 
to the I'reedmen. It was in its preamble the 
sublimesl declaration in legi>lation in this coun- 
try or any other, as I remember it. It com- 
menced wiili a declaration which 1 am happy 
to say found a rcv-ponso in the argument of the 
Senator from Maryland, ''that every native- 
born persou id an American citizen." 1 repeat 



11 



it is tlio sublimcst declaration in all liistory. 
Uji lo lli.nt hour such a dcclararaiioii hy the 
AmoricMii Congress were a legal iuipossihility ; 
but oKI liiiiigs had passed away in the jiiogress 
of ihe cveuis of the war, it liad acqui:i'd the 
authority, and it embraced the lirsl opportunity 
to aniiouiico it. 

But the Senator lias another difficulty about 
the reconstruction policy. He is afraid of the 
ofTects of negro sullVage on the "Caucasian." 
Tlie Caucasian, he .says, is the superior of all 
liuinan tyjie. The Caucasian is the historic 
man. He is lord on this continent. He is the 
'*nian oi: horseback" wlio has a right to dom- 
inate all otherclasscs. Sir, I doubt wheiher, in a 
nation that gathers its population from all the 
tribes and nations and kindreds and families 
of men this doctiinc will gain the popular favor. 
IJow many "Caucasians" of pure blood are 
there liere? Wc liave gathered our population 
fi-om all the nations of tin; earth — Celts, Moors, 
Spaniards, &c. — and it is supposed there are 
some Anglo-Saxons. I never saw one; but 
there may be some of the pure blood. In such 
a nation as this it is supposed that under our 
principles of government some one who is 
whiter than another has a right to rule all the 
rest; and, in the instance of the Senator, it is 
the Caucasian. It has been suggested to me 
that if the Circassian were here the Caucasian 
would have a competitor and a rival. The Cir- 
cassian thinks he is the better man altogether. 
I tell the Senator if one of the finest specimens 
of the Circassian were here he niiglit find a 
rival in beauty and form and grace which 1 am 
afraid the ladies might prefer. [Laughter.] 

But, Mr. President, this idea of race in the 
Government of the United .States is an absurd- 
ity. There is no such thing. Is there any race 
orcolorin the Declaration of Independence? Is 
thereany race or color in the Constitution of the 
United States? Was there any race or color 
in the American constitutions of the several 
States which wpre formed during the revolu- 
tionary era? One sublime doctrine underlay 
the whole of them — equal rights to all, excei)t 
as to the condition of servitude, and all free- 
men stood upon the platform of equality before 
the law. 

Then, Mr. President, I must notice, also, 
that the .Senator has another — what with great 
respect to him I must denominate — political 
inlinnity. He has an apprehension which con- 
trols his political conduct, his policy as a slates- 
man, an American Senator ; an apprehension of 
"the antagonism of races." It is the burden 
of his speech — a frightful antagonism of races, 
to be brought about by what? By putting the 
ballot into the hands of tho negro. Wiint is he 
going to do with it? Beat out the brains of 
the Caucasian? [Laughter.] Dominate over 
liim? llnlc him, with all bis intellectual and 
liumfrical siipcriorily ? About half a million 
of i)lacks will have the ballot, and that half 
million are going to dominate the American 
people, tbirty-Gvc million in number, and rule 
tliL-m I 



The Senator wonld put the Senate of the Uni- 
ted Stales in the bad eminence of saying that 
we have overt hrown the Constitution of the 
United Slates in "order" to inaugurate negro 
domination. Now, I want to know if he believes 
thiU? Is not tlnit a vagarv of an excited imagi- 
nation? Is that an American seniiment? Is it 
logic? Is it sense? Is it history? Is it anything 
recognized among sensilile men anywhere as a 
basis of legislation ? W c are to legi.-latc on an 
apprehension, and ihe apprehension explained 
is, that half a million ol" negroes, if they are 
allowed lo vole in a particular locality, will 
dominate the land. This is really the position 
of the Senator in his recent speech. It will 
never be believed by posteritj*, of course; at 
least I hope not; but it is in the speech; and 
Congress is arraigned by that Senator and iho 
speech is published and sent out to the nation 
to prove lliat we arc overturning this Consti- 
tution — that is our purpose, that is our intent, 
that is what we mean, and in this way — "to 
put the negro in power." 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Bv the bayonet. 

Mr. MOUllILL, of Maine. Yes; by the 
bayonet. I forgot that. We mean to do it by 
the bayonet. The Senator is so frightened out 
of all sense of propriety thai he rises in the Sen- 
ate and says he trcndjles for his country; the 
Caucasians are to be subjugated. Now, sir, is 
thereany such antagonism anywhere in the races 
as the Senator supposes? If there is, will the 
honorable Senator be good enough to tell us 
wheiher it is an inherent )irinci|ile in man; 
whether the Almighty JIaker of heaven and 
earth, the Parent of all of ns, implanted in our 
innermost being a principle of desirnction so 
that it should come to pass (hat whenever we 
came in contact we would fall upon each other 
like beasts of prey? 

The honorable .Senator very properly, but 
very frequently, appeals to bis conscience and 
to the principles of Christianity as inculcated 
by Him " who spake as in'ver man spake." 
That is all well ; but does this nntagnnism of 
race harmonize with the doctrine of Christian- 
ity? \l' I remember anything about the doc- 
trine of Christianit}', that which underlies 
the whole system, tiint which is itself the 
gospel of good tidings to man, it ignores the 
"antagonism" of humanity, treats it ns a 
mean, low prejudice, lo be put away, and pro- 
claims: "(Jod has made ol one blood all the 
families of men to dwell upon the face of the 
earth." Nay more ; it inculcates the brolher- 
crhood of the race. It preaches ihe good tidings 
lliat men are brothers; ihai the inheront ten- 
dencies of their being is love and good will ; 
thai if they were properly indoclrinalcd liy the 
sublime doctrines of the Gospel they would 
fraternize; that it is only heathenism ihat 
hales; it is only ihe narrow and mean i)rcjii- 
diccs of men. Talk about the anlagunism of 
the races! 

Sir, I commend the honorable Senator to his 
BiMe, to Jiis ilosel, to miMJilalioii. and lo 
prayer lo be relieved from the unworthy prcju- 



12 



dice of the "antagonism of races," which does 
not exist, which is rank infidelity. Legislate on 
an apprehension and keep the negro in bondage ! 
Why? Because if you let him go at large, he will 
fly in the face of the white race, and then comes 
destruction! Who will get hurt? He is afraid 
the negro. The negro is willing to take his 
chance. I confess to a willingness to see the 
experiment tried — all parties having fair play. 
[Laughter.] 

But these notions of the honorable Senator 
are disclosed in many ways. It is not new, 
not peculiar to this case. We had this ques- 
tion in another shape early in 1862 on the 
emancipation of the slaves in the District of 
Columbia. The Senator was exercised with 
the same apprehension then ; and it showed 
itself in an amendment that these negroes 
must be deported if they were freed. Why? 
"There would be murders in the streets of 
Washington, vagrancy, disorder." 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The honorable Senator 
will allow me to state that it was another Sen- 
ator who moved the amendment to the bill that 
those who were emancipated must be deported, 
and I moved an amendment to the amendment 
that none should be deported unless they were 
willing to go. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The Senator 
voted for deportation. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Of those who were 
willing to go; not for their deportation unless 
they were willing. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Does the Senator 
suppose his qualification changes the principle 
of which I have been speaking? If the negro 
cannot stay with safety he ought to go. Why 
the necessity of his deportation? Because it is 
not safe for him to be here. Then he ought to go, 
whether he is willing or not. That is the an- 
swer to that argument. But I remember the 
honorable Senator's argument on that occa- 
sion very well. It was to show the inferiority of 
the negro; that he could not live in the pres- 
ence of the white man; that he was perishing, 
dying out, and had better be carried out of the 
country. The honorable Senator has many 
times repeated it here since the war, that his 
belief was that two million of them, I think — a 
very large proportion of them, at any rate — had 
perished during the war. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is true. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Nothing further 
from the truth. The records of the Freed- 
men's Bureau show that they have not de- 
creased, and there is a very good reason for 
it. They stayed at home out of danger, to a 
very great extent, owing to the circumstances 
under which the war was conducted. But that 
is not to the purpose further than to sliowhow 
unfounded is this apprehension under which 
the Senator labors, wliich controls his action 
and his votes here, and binds him to the policy 
of the President of tiie United States. 

I have a few words of reply to the honorable 
Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hkxuricks.] He 
very properly opposes congressional recon- 



struction on the opinion he entertains. He 
believes in the " abiding rights of the States." 
He believes with that famous body of men 
which convened at Philadelphia in 18G6 to en- 
force the policy of the President, and who were 
touched even to tears, it is said, by the thought 
that the day when all " white" men were to be 
of one mind politically and of their way of think- 
ing, would become affectionate and kind to 
each other, was fast dawning. They resolved 
that the rights of the States were "abiding 
rights;" that they existed in the beginning, 
during the whole war, and at its conclusion. 
Having thus resolved they proceeded, in a 
qualified way, to indorse President Johnson, 
whose policy was based upon exactly the re- 
verse of that doctrine. I have always sup- 
posed that if that convention had acted at all 
consistent with their opinions they would have 
recommended the President to Congress for 
impeachment; but neither they nor the Presi 
dent made a point of the principles of either. 
The President, the late rebels, the anti-war 
Democrats, had an issue of reconstruction of 
rebel States with Congress and with the great 
Union party of the' war ; and being agreed in 
the purpose of getting into power again in the 
nation, what were principles to them in such 
an emergency? 

The Senator stands on the doctrine which he 
enunciates that the State governments, through 
the war, lost no rights; that they "brought all 
their constitutions with them through the con- 
flict." But the Senator indorses the policy of 
the President. In this the Senator will allow 
me to say that I think he is not consistent with 
himself. I propose by the exhibit in open court 
of his record and that of the President to 
force him to the abandonment of his position 
or to renounce his principles. Whether he will 
come to our side or not I do not know ; but that 
is a matter of which he must judge. It may 
be the Senator will take the side of his Dem- 
ocratic friends in the South, who would rather 
have military despotism than reconstruction 
under Congress. 

The Senator assumes that the policy of Pres- 
ident Johnson was based upon the recognition 
of the existence of the State governments. If 
that is so, the Senator is right in supporting it. 
If it is not so, he will agree with me that there 
is no foundation for his faith. In the first place, 
it should be observed that the Senator under- 
takes, for support, to connect the policy of Mr. 
Lincoln with the policy of President Johnson. 
He says the two are identical; and that Mr. 
Johnson inherited this policy from President 
Lincoln ; that they were both founded upon the 
idea that tlie States had not lost their organiza- 
tions; and both based upon the policy of re- 
storing the old State governments. Let us see 
how that is. The first act on record, as I re- 
member, of President Lincoln on this subject 
was his proclixmation of the 8th of December, 
18G3, in which he proposes organization for the 
States, as he supposed, in the military posses- 
sion of the armies of the United States. In thia 



13 



proclamation, in which he introduced the sub- 
ject of the condition of these States, ia this 
language: 

"Whereas n rebellion now exists whereby the loyal 
State Roveriimoutji of soverul Stute^ have tur a loug 
time beuu"— 

What? 
"subverted." 

Subverted, overthrown, destroyed. That is 
the Lincoln policy, llat and square. And fur- 
ther, in some directions to the military autlior- 
ities with regard to resuscitating these Slates, 
he uses this language: 

"And being a qualified voter by tho election law 
of the State existing immediately before tiie so- 
called act of seuesdioD, and excluding all others, 
shall"— 

What? Be restored? "No." 
"shall reestablish a State government." 

But a more signilicant fact still is this, that 
in 1S05, just before the death of President Lin- 
coln, at the surrender of Lee, the rebel author- 
ities of the State of Virginia, " all having come 
through the war," according to the Senator, 
their organizations all complete, legal States, 
all ready for readmission, restored to the Union 
by the surrender of Lee, undertook to exercise 
State authority. The President issued his order 
repudiating their action. He denied their au- 
thority, and held that all their powers were lost 
in the rebellion. 

But the honorable Senator thinks he finds 
plenary proof, which concludes Congress. To 
use his own words, "Congress is concluded 
on this question." Congress in 18(34, just 
before the adjournment of the session of that 
year, passed a bill for provisional governments, 
sometimes called the Winter Davis bill, which 
provided for the reconstruction of these States, 
and the honorable Senator tells us that Presi- 
dent Lincoln did what would seem to be quite 
an unseemly thing; that he was so determined 
that Congress should not interfere with his 
prerogative that he " flung the bill" defiantly 
in the face af Congress, as much as to say, 
"Attend to your own atlairs ; I am the United 
States; I claim the exclusive right to recon- 
struct or reorganize these States ; Congress has 
nothing to do with it; 1 defy Congress." 1 
denounce Congress, would be the implication 
fairly from the language of the Senator. "It 
is none of your concern whatever; it is ray 
business; and in due time I will restore, as I 
am restoring, the States." Now, what was the 
fact? President Lincoln did not "sign that 
bill." Why? " It was sent to him only an hour 
before the adjournment." He had had an idea 
that some of these States might be brought in in 
another way; he had "experimental" organi- 
zations in Louisiana and in Arkansas, and was 
embarrassed on that account. How were those 
governments organized? Were the old State 
governments recognized? No, sir; Louisiana 
was organized on the basis of one tenth of her 
population, with a new governnjenl in all re- 
spects, and that government wuh organized at 
New Orleans vrhile the rebels were carrying on 



their "old State government" in two thirds 
of the entire territory of that State. And yet 
the Senator from Indiana rises here and tells 
the Senate that we are concluded on this ques- 
tion ; that President Lincoln had intended to 
restore "the old State governments." The 
President, in words altogether decorous, as 
was his wont, said to Congres8,*tIiat while he 
could not, without embarrassment, sign the 
bill, that he had no objection to the policy, and 
in the I'uture would observe it. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator allow 
me to ask him one question? 

Mr. MORIHLL, of Maine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. irENDRICKS. I wish to know if Pres- 
ident Lincoln, in that proclamation, while he 
referred to the case of Louisiana and Arkan- 
sas, did not expressly say that he was unpre- 
pared by a formal approval of that bill to be 
inflexibly committed to any single plan of resto- 
ration ; and did he not in the same proclama- 
tion say that he was pleased well enough with 
the {^lan suggested by Congress, but that he 
would not be bound to it as a law would bind 
him ; but that, if the people went on with the 
work of the restoration of their Stales, the 
Executive would recognize the governments 
made by them, and would guarauty them in 
their refniblican form? 

Mr. MORiilLL, of Maine. I think he said 
something to that efl'ect ; but that is not the 
point to which 1 am adverting. He said he did 
not wish to be bound to any definite plan for 
all the States ; but he did say, in so many 
words, as the Senator will find, that he had no 
objection to this plan, and would observe it iu 
the future, not for all the Slates, because he 
had two States he meant to except. He always 
intended to restore, if it were practicable on 
his plan, the Slates of Louisiana and Ark- 
ansas. He felt committed to it. He felt that 
his faith was involved in it, although they were 
based on a principle anti-American and anti- 
republican, which never could have been recog- 
nized by an American Congress, that one tenth 
of the voters should organize a Stale. Still the 
President was attached to it, and that was the 
principal reason for his dissent from that bill. 

But it is said now ibr President Johnson's 
policy that it is identical with that of Mr. l^in- 
coin. If it is, then, it is not in harmony with 
the opinions of the honorable Senator on the 
record, and so not entitled to his support. The 
first act of Mr. Johnson's Adtninistralion upon 
the i)oint after he came into power is a signifi- 
cant one, and is conclusive, I think, on the 
point raised by the honorable Senator. I 
think Lee surrendered before President John- 
son was sworn into olBcCj and General John- 
ston surrendered a short time afterward. 

Mr. CONKLINO. On tho 18th of April. 
18i>o, and President Lincoln was killed ou the 
IJth. 

Mr. MORRH.L, of Maine. The country 
knows that on the surrender of General John- 
ston a projiosiiion was made by which all the 
southern Stales, in the language of the Sen- 



14 



ator, were to be recognized as having brouglit 
through blood and peril of civil war their con- 
Btitut.ions and State governments, and they 
were to be offered as a living sacrifice on the 
altar of the Constitution of the United States, 
and to be introduced into the Union with all 
their rights, privileges, and dignity unimpaired, 
as the phras0»is. Did the President assent to 
it? He issued an order repudiating it abso- 
lutely, declaring that it was a proposition not 
to be entertained, not to be considered. Sir, 
does that look like recognizing and restoring 
these "old State governments?" 

But the proclamation which the honorable 
Senator has quoted from and commented upon, 
and which he asserts binds President Johnson 
to the policy of guarantying the old State gov- 
ernments, is most important to my purpose. I 
will read what the honorable Senator said, so 
that I may do him no injustice: 

"In the first place, I will state that ho directed 
each of the departments to extend its operatiousiuto 
the soutlicrn States. " 

There is a recognition, says the honorable 
Senator. 

" Then he goes on with the work of providing for 
restoration; and whatpropositionsdocs he lay down? 
First, lioreeoguizes the old State government of North 
Carolina, just as he had done in Tennessee, just as 
Congress didin admitting Tennessee, with therecitals 
in the preamble; for, after appointing a provisional 
governor and giving him instructions, ho says"— 

Here is the proof — 

"' Aconvention composed of delegates to be chosen 
by that portion of the people of said State who are 
loyal to the United States, and no others, for the 
purpose of altering or amending the constitution 
thereof.' " 

He quotes further, as follows: 

"'And with authority to exercise within the limits 
of said State all the powers necessary and proper to 
enable such loyal people of the Slate of North Caro- 
lina to restore said State to its constitutional rela- 
tions to the i'ederal Government.'" 

And there it stops. There he makes a period. 
That is the full sentence. That is the complete 
expression ofthe President ofthe United States, 
as the honorable Senator quotes it to the Sen- 
ate, and as he intends it shall go to the coun- 
try to prove Lis positiou. Now, what is the 
whole of it? 

"And with authority to exercise within the limits 
of said State all the i)owers necessary and proper to 
enable such loyal people of the State of North Caro- 
lina to restore said State to its constitutional rela- 
tions to the Federal Govcrnmeut, and to present" — 

Here is the point — 

"and to present such a republican form of State 
government as will entitle the State to thoguaranteo 
of the United States therefor, aiid<its people to pro- 
tection by the United States against invasion, insur- 
rection, and domestic violence." 

There the sentence ends. The Senator finds 
it convenient to sustain his argument to divide 
the sentence, to break off in the middle ofthe 
Bentence ; so that where he makes it end it 
means one thing, and where it does end it 
means another and quite the reverse. Where 
it does end it mtans the reconstruction of a 
republican government. Of course, the Sen- 



ator did not see that it had that effect. Ue 
quoted it altogether inadvertent!}', I am bound 
to believe. The Senator, of course, in the hurry 
of the discussion, under the impulses of the 
moment, intent on proving his point, quoted 
enough to prove the point, and forgot, omitted, 
overlooked, did not see the significance or rela- 
tion ofthe rest ofthe sentence. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator allow 
me one moment? 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Certainly. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not choose to 
accept the defense made by the Senator for me. 
I understood exactly what I was saying. The 
point that I was making was this, as the Senator 
has stated : that, notwithstanding the contra- 
dictory statement in the preamble in that 
proclamation, in the body of the bill, if I may 
so express it, the President authorized the pro- 
visional governor to call a convention, and 
that convention to amend the constitution. My 
argument was, that if the President .did not 
recognize the old constitution as an existing 
thing it could not be amended ; that the doc- 
trine that the State government had gone out 
of existence and that the constitution had 
ceased as a law would have required the Pres- 
ident to call for a convention to make a State 
government ; but that when the President pro- 
posed an amendment to the State constitution 
he recognized that instrument as an existing 
thing. Therefore I think that my quotation for 
the purpose of establishing that proposition was 
full, amjile, and complete, and that the residue 
of the sentence does not interfere with the 
logic of the position I assumed. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. My point was 
to show the Senator that the President of the 
United States did not recognize the existing 
State governments. 

M.-. HENDRICKS. That is your proposi- 
tion. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. And that the 
quotation ofthe Senator, ending where it did, 
seemed to prove that he did ; and ending where 
it really ends, repels that inference. 1 think 
whoever reads the speech and sees the com- 
ments which the Senator makes upon it will 
find that he is impaled exactly on that last 
clause, which he did not quote. Of course I 
attribute nothing except what is honorable to 
him. I relieve him of all embarrassment of 
intention on this subject; but in the way he 
quotes it, he will allow me to say, it bears a 
ialse light to the Senate and the country; it is 
tampering with the witness in open court; it 
makes him say what he did not intend to say. 
That is the way it stands, and I leave the Sen- 
ator to his explanation. 

If it were necessary to press that argument 
further, conclusive refutation of his proposi- 
tion may be found in the proclamations and 
speeches of President Johnson. Of course ho 
is supposed to know all about President John- 
son's position on this subject, whether he be- 
lieved the States came through the civil war or 
not. Since he has become in some sense, some 



lo 



very important sonsp, his cliampion nnd do- 
fLMiJer OM iliis floor, lie is Bupposcd to be con- 
versant willi Ilia opinions and senlinients on 
this subii'Ct. lie snjs, in '' tlic first place," 
that ihe President of the United Slates "rec- 
ognizes the old State government of North Car- 
olina as existing." 'Let us see what he does 
r3coj;;nize. This, mind yon, sir, is a proclama- 
tion aildressed to the people of North Carulina 
witli the view of reorganizing tiicir State gov- 
ernment. What does he say of its condition? 
Of course he must have had in his mind wlicn 
he issued his proclamation the condition of the 
State — whether it was a Stale government to 
be recognized or whether it was iv State gov- 
ernment to be reorganized and reijstablished. 
Among the "whereases" setting out the gen- 
eral condition of affairs, among other things 
attributable to the war, he says: 

"Ami wtiproas the rebellion, which ha? boon wnpcd 
by a portion of t lie i)co|)leotthe United St a ten agaiiiet 
tlio inoptily conslilutcd anihoriiios of liio tJovcrn- 
uient thereof in the luost violent and revolting loriu, 
but whoso or^ani/-(d and armed forces have now been 
olinost entirely overcome, has iu ltd rcvolutiouary 
progress '' — 

The Senator did not notice that word " rev- 
olutionary," I greatly fear.' "In its revolu- 
tionary progress" it had done what? llevoln- 
tionized, of course, subverted, overthrown. 
"In its revolutionary jji-ogress" what has it 
done? " Brongiit the old State governments 
through the war," says the Senator; but the 
President snys it has "deprived the people of 
the State of North Carolina of all civil gov- 
ernment." Did he use that language unwit- 
tingly? The Senator says it is a preamble. 
Well, the preamble is a recital of facts. 'J'iiat 
is the object of a preamble. It is put in to 
give solemnity to the event, to bring the sub- 
ject matter distinctly before the body that is 
to act upon it.. The President says that in the 
revolutionary progress of events the rebellion 
has destroyed all civil government in North 
Carolina, every vestige of it; there is nothing 
left. Did he make a mistake about that? Let 
us see. I find in the report of the Committee 
on Ueconstruelion language used by Mr. John- 
son, in speaking of the ellects of the rebel- 
lion, to Mr. Stearns: 

"Tho State institutions aro prostrated, laid on tbo 
ground" — 

" Come through?" Wjiat must bo done 
with them? 
"And tbcy must bo taken up"— 

And what then? 
"And adapted to the jirosrcsa of events." 

What does that mean? To restore the old 
State governments? No, sir; but they must 
be rcorgaiiizeil and reestablished and recon- 
structed and put in harmony with (he revolu- 
tionary progress of events. Tliat is what he 
said. 1 should like to lie;irthc Senator explain 
the meaning of those words. 

Mr. IIl'A'DlilCKS. What do you re.id from? 

Jlr. MOIIUILL. of Maine. I am readin- 
from the riporl of the Reconstruelion Commit- 



too. They found that to have been a fact and 
reported it to the Senate. 

Now, Mr. President, i am done with the hon- 
orable Senator from Indiana. My only object 
was to satisfy him that his adhesion to the pol- 
icy of the President of the United States was 
upon a mistaken state of facts altogether, a 
misconception of his principles, and that he is 
at perfect liberty to abandon his policy ; and I 
submit to him whether he is not in duty bound 
to abandon his policy, now that he sees that it 
is absolutely inconsistent and incomiiatible with 
the principles which he avows and maintains; 
that the surrender of Lee was the restoration 
of the Union; that these States were eniilled 
by that surrender to be recognized by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States with all their 
rights, privileges, and dignity unimp:iired. 

A single relleclion and I shall relieve tho 
patience of the Senate. Senators on that side 
of the Chamber all close with a solemn pro- 
diction that reconstruction by Congress would 
prove a failure. If it fails it is to fail for 
what? Because it is not in Inirmony with tho 
principles of our institutions? Because it ia 
repugnant to the principles of American lib- 
erty? Because it is not consonant with tho 
principles of justice? Because it is likily to 
be oj)pressivc lo any class of the community? 
Is it obnoxious to any of these suggestions? 
Does any Senator rise here and say that this pol- 
icy is an iibsolutc injustice to any class of men? 
It is said, sir, that it outlaws certain rebels. 
No, sir; lo assert that is to talk inaccurately; 
it outlaws nobody. It enfranchises everybody 
except the guiltiest of the guilty. Their war 
on the Union disl'ranchiscd the jjoople of these 
States. Their war on the Government of tho 
country ihey were bound to houor, to love, and 
maintain "outlawed" them. They lost all 
their rights by rebellion and civil war. We 
have magntiuimously enfranchised all but the 
few leaders steeped in guilt. We enact no 
bills of pains and penalties, decree no Ibrfeit- 
ures. \\ c restore lliem to all their rights of 
person and pro[)erty. We give them their 
rights as American citizens lo the fullest cxIenL 
We are willing to forgive the masses of tho 
people; but as to tho.so men who committed 
the unpardonable political sin of having sworn 
lo support the Constitution of the Uniteil Slates 
and then conspired iigainst it, made causeless 
war upon it, tiiey may not again be intrusted 
with power. Other nations in other limes 
would have hung, dr:uvn, and quartered these 
men or driven them from the country. Davia 
even is abroad, feted, feasted in norlhcrn cities. 
A great and magminimous people can endure 
these things, but cannot agree to conlide ollicea 
of trust and power to men who have oneo 
betrayed it, unless it would consent to have 
secession, insurrection, and civil war rcen- 
ncted. These men regret nothing but their 
defeat. 

One significant fact stands confes.sed, thai 
ihe tlohnson Slates are neither in form or ia 
t.'ffect republican Slates ; that those Slatea di» 



^ 



16 



qualify and hold in a state of total civil and 
political disability an entire class of citizens 
of the United States. In some of the States 
a majority of the citizens of the State within 
their limits, men declared to be citizens by the 
Constitution of the United States, are utterly 
disfranchised and denied all civil rights. Is 
that a republican State according to the formula 
of American States ? Is that a republican Stale 
in essence and in effect according to the Amer- 
ican principle? I deny it. Whatever assump- 
tion violates the rights of any one of the hum- 
blest of American citizens impairs or imperils 
the rights of all. 

I have to say to my honorable friend from 
Maryland that I have very strong reasons to 
suspect that the State which he represents will be 
found to fall in the category of anti-republican 
States. Of course I venture no opinion on 
that subject, not now before the Senate ; but 
I am so thoroughly impressed with its anti-re- 
publican character that I take this occasion to 
say that it is not easy for me to understand 
how that State can lay claim to be republican 
either in form or in fact. She enfranchised 
all her citizens in 1865, 1 think, when her con- 
stitution was changed to conform to the Consti- 
tution of the United States. Last year it was 
made to disfranchise all those people who had 
been theretofore enfranchised. She has, by 
her constitution, reduced to practical vassalage 
and excluded from the privileges of citizenship 
common to the American citizen one fifth of 
her entire population, and all citizens of the 
United States. I repeat, sir, is that a repub- 
lican State which disfranchises so large a por- 
tion of her citizen population? 

And that is not the worst of it; as is sug- 
gested by my honorable friend from Califor- 
nia, [Mr. CoNNESS,] it is hardly to be denied 
they have done that in order to give the dis- 
loyal element in that State the absolute suprem- 
acy. It bears rule there to-day. That element 
which would have overthrown this Government 
with pleasure and delight during the war is in 



power in Maryland to-day. Her militia offi- 
cered to some extent by those who served in 
the rebel army during the rebellion. She sends 
to her Legislature those who are in sympathy 
with rebels, and who served in the rebel ranks 
and with the rebel forces. Nay, sir, she w"ould 
send to this Hall men who deserted then-trusts 
rather than support the Government of the 
United States, if she could. There is no more 
conclusive evidence to my mind of her abso-. 
lute disloyalty in fact and in purpose than the 
fact that the honorable Senator from Maryland, 
who patriotically stood by the country during 
the war, standing for the Government always, 
receives but a single vote in the Legislature, 
while those who would not serve the Govern- 
ment, those who sympathized with the rebel- 
lion, are asking admission to this Chamber, 
under her authority and as her choice. 

Nay, sir ; from what I see announced in -U^e ^; 
public journals, and not denied, she has'giveo 
full evidence of the anti-republican and anti- 
American spirit that animates her. In all the 
bills of rights that preceded the constitutions of 
the several American States inaugurated during 
the Revolutionary, erai you will lind the great 
American doctrine which was most conspicu- 
ous in the Declaration of Independence, which 
underlies the Constitution, set forth as the 
prominent and fundamental doctrine on which 
American communities and American institu- 
tions were to rest, that "all men are created, 
equal." That was the doctrine of the Decla- 
ration of Independence and was copied into the 
bills of rights of all the States. It was in thi 
bill of rights of Maryland. Where is it now 
Expunged from the declaration of rights; anu 
in what spirit? The spirit of disloyalty to the 
sentiments of the Declaration of Independence 
and the American Constitution : the spirit that 
is anti-American ; the spirit that is anti-repub- 
lican — such a spirit cannot fail to brand her 
as an anti- republican State, an an ti- American 
State not worthy of the companionship and 
sisterhood of American States. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



